ITAT Mumbai held that Commission to bank on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards is not liable to TDS under section 194H of Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that in terms of the provisions of the applicable tax treaty, i.e., Indo-Mauritius tax treaty, and as the provisions of the applicable tax treaty, being more beneficial to the assessee, override the provisions of the domestic law, the taxability of the dividends on the IDRs fails.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of making general statement without examining the alleged receipts is unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because the assessee couldn’t explain the balance amount of Rs. 8,57,000 mentioned in computation of income and return, the same cannot be added to the total income. Addition not sustainable on the basis of typographical error.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per rule 3(8)(iii) fair market value of any equity shares on the date of exercising option by the employee shall be determined by a merchant banker. Accordingly, quantum of perquisite and TDS liability will be worked on the said basis.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D cannot be more than the quantum of exempt income.
ITAT Mumbai held that as expenses are not specifically disputed; books of accounts admitted to be correct and payments made through banking channel, disallowing the expenses at whims and fancies is unsustainable in law. Department is required to follow the rule of consistency.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO has jurisdiction to examine the quantum of expenditure, however, TPO has no jurisdiction question the assessees need or prudence for making payment for the expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 justified as investment made by the companies in the assessee company lacks trust and details of transactions submitted by the assessee didn’t inspire confidence as the credibility of the companies are questionable as per the financials of the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that development rights in the plot of land were transferred to the builder in the financial year 2000–01. Provisions of section 50C were effective only from 1st April 2003 and hence the same are not applicable in the present case.
